Okey dokey: tekriter has raised some valid points, albeit in a particularly aggressive manner that, frankly, doesn't lend itself well to a discussion on the existence of god.

More to the point: tekriter response seems pointed towards the realm of ridicule.

Many many people claim to have been saved, healed, rescued etc. by voices, angels, God, whatever. Doesn't prove anything. but it doesn't disprove anything either. The Miracle of Faith provides all the required enthusiasms for believing; personal experience re: beating cancer, surviving a car accident adds to their faith.

I have similar 'should have died' type stories from my own experiences. I have many personal examples of mysterious happenings that altered the course of my life because I believed I was being guided. Believed retrospectively, of course.

If anything, I was made aware through some kind of divine (however you want to er...define devine) intervention/presence that my life was under some otherworldy influence.

God? Don't know. What I DO know is that, being a generally non-religious person, whatever goes on in this life is part of a bigger mystery.

Don't ask how I know that. I just do.

Posted by KublaKhan More to the point: tekriter response seems pointed towards the realm of ridicule.

Society would ridicule any fantastic claims, such as claiming that I had a refridgerator sized diamond in my backyard, no proof, I just believe it. Why should untestable fantastical claims about the origin of the universe, or the existence of angels be any different?

Posted by KublaKhan God? Don't know. What I DO know is that, being a generally non-religious person, whatever goes on in this life is part of a bigger mystery.

I agree. I simply don't agree that not knowing the answers to the mysteries of the universe is not an excuse to fabricate a deity, no matter how much you WANT to believe that there is an intelligent power at work or a design.

Posted by katwoman People who are not interested in anything other than solid, tangible "PROOF" will never stop to consider the possibility of miracles or other things that take faith to recognize.

American patriot Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, asked: "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie."

It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of other religions.

I am full of awe and wonder at the natural world and I find discovering the mechanisms of nature breathtaking and spiritual experience. Nothing I have found requires that I make baseless assumptions or attribute the causal relationships to a higher power -other than science and reason.

Posted by katwoman Which is why I've nearly stopped posting here... though I'm always happy to talk to those who are truly interested another point of view.

I am fascinated in this other point of view. I read the bible and koran and talk to religious people all the time. I am most interested to find out the psychological reasons for belief - particularly fantastical dogmatic belief that persists in the face of reason. I would be extremely interested, for example, in your point of view on the reformation and what it means to christianity as a whole. I would like to understand your god concept, but I need to see it, or at least have someone explain to me the method for showing that a god is an actor in the set of all known things. Throw me a bone here.

It is worthy of note that many religious people recognize that their ideology will not stand up to any scrutiny and retreat to hide behind FAITH or simply refuse to debate. I personally feel that any system of beliefs that I subcribea to ought to be able to stand up to scrutiny before I make any life decisions based on those ideas. To stop the debate as soon as I feel uncomfortable with a big faith hammer is not acceptable to me.

Lucky for you, you don't have to prove any beliefs you hold. Lucky for me, you have to prove them before you can make me or my country act on them.

Christianity and belief in god are first century ideas based around a myth. The dogma of the church has been proven wrong at every historical threshold. Each decade, another part of the bible is taken away from the realm of truth and placed on the allegorical plate. Soon there will be not much bible pie left to eat (or does any one think that we should go back to burning witches and owning women?). Doesn't anyone want to question the things that you have been told to believe and not question based on an odd concept called faith. It sounds like brainwashing to me. Maybe the nazis wanted to believe that the jews were ruining the economy. Maybe they accepted hitler's ideas on faith and did not question them.

Posted by tekriter It is worthy of note that many religious people recognize that their ideology will not stand up to any scrutiny and retreat to hide behind FAITH or simply refuse to debate. I personally feel that any system of beliefs that I subcribea to ought to be able to stand up to scrutiny before I make any life decisions based on those ideas. To stop the debate as soon as I feel uncomfortable with a big faith hammer is not acceptable to me.

with you 100% on that. I did not blindly refine my beliefs.

Posted by tekriter American patriot Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, asked: "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie." It is a fact of history and of current events that human beings exaggerate, misinterpret, or wrongly remember events. They have also fabricated pious fraud. Most believers in a religion understand this when examining the claims of other religions. I am full of awe and wonder at the natural world and I find discovering the mechanisms of nature breathtaking and spiritual experience. Nothing I have found requires that I make baseless assumptions or attribute the causal relationships to a higher power -other than science and reason.

You know what...? This is a wonderfully executed response. Thanks for your clarity.

I too am awestruck by the natural wonders that surround me every day. And yet, when the sudden warmth of wonder falls over me, I can't help but thank Whoever for placing me in that moment. Watching the arrival of my son was astonishing, awe-inspiring, terrifying and exhilarating. It is one of my most cherished experiences. But it's not an unusually event: 6.5 billion people and going stong. I was one of them, and I felt the mysterious ways of nature work through the delivery, and I was humbled.

I won't go into the Intelligent Design argument here, because...really...there's not a whole lot of difference between how a human versus a cat delivers offspring. But seriously...having been there, having seen the arrival of this person who now so dominates my every breath, I can't help but wonder at the unfathomable depths of creation, at the cycles of life, of the finality of death, and these inform the questions I ask of my universe every single day. Living is a big question.

I address these questions to the higher authority that is my own conscience, my own mind, my own intelligence.

Posted by katwoman with you 100% on that. I did not blindly refine my beliefs.

Well, in a way you have.

Christianity is based on a lot of assumptions and circular reasoning. christians often point at the bible as proof or evidence. The bible is inconsistent and often contradictory -not to mention downright disturbing. The bible is not the one true word of god - some man wrote it, or more likely a collection of fallible men, none of whon could have had any personal knowledge of this christ they worship. As you go through the gospels you notice that the stories are the same story retold with errors and ever increasing miracle or other supernatural events. These events that are recounted are very similar to a number of other contemporary myths.

The bible is no more proof that christ walked the earth than the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is proof that aliens exist.

That leaves you with only the tautological assertions of an organized religion that you were born to, or chose, in contrast to any of a dozen competing and contradictory (and equally invalid) ideologies.

Lacking any physical proof of the events described in the bible, or any independent historical accounts (like where exactly was this cave that the christ was in, where is the cross?, what about he shroud of turin? ) and noting all of the evidence to the contrary, like the age of light from distant stars, the existence of dinosaurs, the perfectly scientifically valid theory of evolution as proved by the genetic records of DNA, etc, I am forced to believe, at least for the time being, that there is no god.

The whole concept of dogmatic belief means that you are unwilling to accept that there may be a rational explanation for everything, and that you are following a myth that seemed perfectly acceptable given the knowledge of the world in the first century.

I respectfully submit that you have been mislead by centuries of superstition. All you are left with is a set of beliefs that has but one reason to be perpetuated: it would be very nice IF it were true. I would love to believe in the eternal soul and that I would be forgiven for all the hurtful things I have done in my life. Given the most tenuous strand of evidence-like writings, such as the bible, is all the proof many people need to believe exactly what they WANT to belive. That is blindness.

Further to that:

"A legend begins with a basic story (true or false) that grows into something more embellished and exaggerated as the years pass. When we look at the documents of the resurrection of Jesus, we see that the earliest accounts are very simple, later retellings are more complex, and the latest tales are fantastic. In other words, they look exactly like a legend.

The documents that contain a resurrection story are usually dated like this:

Writer Date Resurrection passage
Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8)
Mark: 70 (Mark 16)
Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28)
Luke: 85 (Luke 24)
Gospel of Peter: 85-90 (Fragment)
John: 95 (John 20-21)

This is the general dating agreed upon by most scholars, including the Westar Institute. Some conservative scholars prefer to date them earlier, and others have moved some of them later, but this would not change the order of the writing , which is more important than the actual dates when considering legendary growth. Shifting the dates changes the shape but not the fact of the growth curve.

I made a list of things I consider "extraordinary" (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves ("Halloween"), Jesus appearing out of thin air ("Now you see him") and disappearing ("Now you don't"), the "fish story" miracle, Peter's noncanonical "extravaganza" exit from the tomb , a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven. Perhaps others would choose a slightly different list, but I'm certain it would include most of the same.

Then I counted the number of extraordinary events that appear in each account:

Writer Extraordinary events
Paul: 0
Mark: 1
Matthew: 4
Luke: 5
Peter: 6
John: 8+ "
- Freedom From Religion Foundation

Just so you know, I'm not interested in responding because I don't believe you are sincerely interested in what I'm saying as an individual, rather "one of those Christians."


The reason for this post is to deflate any speculation of me either ignoring or being unable to form a response. Think what you will.

If you are not willing to critically examine the roots of your beliefs, then you ARE just another duped consumer of propoganda. "I believe simply because I was told to believe and it would be nice if it was all true" fair enough, but your views of the world and claims about the origin of the universe will be taken with a corresponding level of respect to your level of credibility.

Your lack of response puts you in that category, not me. If you had the answer to the questions of the universe why would you not share them? Are you not bound by the articles of your faith to help the rest of us in to heaven? Is that not a little selfish and unchristian?

I would be interested from hearing from someone from the christian side of the fence with a good explanation for the lack of any credible evidence of the articles of their faith.

How about the fact that modern "moderate" christians claim that christianity is tolerant and compatible with science and other religions - despite the contradictory passages in the bible? and a rich history of christian suppression of science and atrocities committed against non-believers in the name of the god of abraham?

How does christianity reconcile a first century view of the world in the bible with all of the advances in knowledge and social conventions? Is the bible the one true word of god, or is it allegory? Who decides what passages to ignore and what passages are still relevant? Are women property? Is it okay to stone the non-believers? Are homosexuals deviant and unnatural? Are they going to hell and therefore less valuable than someone who believes fantastical claims about the origin of the universe at face value?

Is it true that you can be forgiven for doing bad things just by asking a supernatural being that never answers? Can you guarantee a place in heaven by eating a cracker and drinking some wine after saying the right latin words over it?

I would like to understand your belief and I would like even more to see your god and have all of the wonderful promises of christianity be true, but I have not seen a good answer yet. Have you given up on me because I deny the existence of the holy spirit, which is the one unforgiveable sin? Am I evil, now? There are billions of christians, surely one of them can point me to this god, or at least outline the steps to understand. Otherwise it just seems like a different brand of kool-aid has been served at your cult meetings.

You can cover your ears and repeat I can't hear you all day, but won't your god recognize your defence of the faith as being a little lacking?

Sorry dude, but you are implying things that aren't true, so that, coupled with your not-so-between-the-lines opinions leads me to say... PASS!

Any other takers?

Posted by katwoman Sorry dude, but you are implying things that aren't true, so that, coupled with your not-so-between-the-lines opinions leads me to say... PASS! Any other takers?

I don't think I implied anything. I am pretty up front about what I want to say. If I have confused you, just ask, and I am happy to clarify.

I don't want to get off topic anymore.

Does god exist? Nope.

Unless you qualify that,and say that god exists only in your imagination.

To squirrel the debate and say that you don't have to prove the existence of a supernatural deity on the grounds that faith is enough is simply not good enough. All arguments in support of the existence of god fall flat on their face when examined by science or logic. They all boil down to faith - which means believing because you want to. The christ, and his god, are a myth - and nothing more, until they are shown to be real. Real means tangible and testable.

What about you can't prove that god doesn't exist? A negative burden is ridiculous, but science agrees and leaves everything open to accept new evidence - so far none has arrived. You can't prove that the universe was not created as a doorstop for a galactic truck stop. What does that positively prove? Nothing.

How about the world, and/or anything in it being too complex and wonderful to have evolved, the intelligent design theory. The whole argument boiled down to an argument from incredulity - I can't belive it wasn't god! Turns out it is far more probable that life evolved than the miracle theory - evolutionary science supports this. The fact that all biological matter on the planet shares the same genetic coding - from bacteria to people - is conclusive proof of this. The fact that science has not explained everything does not mean that it won't or that there must be a supernatural excuse.

What about the bible? More myth. Inconsistent stories told by fallible men of whom not one could have any knowledge of the event they describe. Courts call this hearsay, nd historical records support this. Myth, not fact and proof of nothing.

Anybody want to play with those? Anybody want to try the philosophical proofs? Come on?

It seems that the concept of god is just a fanciful way to explain things that cannot otherwise be explained or understood by normal lay people. We look at the ideas that were proposed by the church centuries ago and say "the earth is clearly not round! how foolish" I am sure that centuries from now our descendants will look at our time and say "I can't believe that people, people that should have known better, killed each other over silly books like the koran and the bible and thier fantastical claims about the nature of the universe! That's ridiculous."

So, someone could show me god, or we can end here by pointing out that no god exists, or exerts influence over reality, AND god does exist in the minds of people who are willing to accept him on faith alone. Then we are both right!

tekriter, follow this link and when you get finished reading, come on back and I'll try to clarify anything you don't understand.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

Here is an excerpt to start you off:
"Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful."

Posted by Trixi tekriter, follow this link and when you get finished reading, come on back and I'll try to clarify anything you don't understand. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ Here is an excerpt to start you off: "Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful."

Lot's of propoganda, but not much fact. What passages, praytell, explain where god is?

This is all I can give you as an explanation for the existence of God from a Lutheran point of view. I can't give you any more and I know you won't accept this so I'm reluctant to post it. But I said when I had the time I would post something. Here it is.

The natural, or general argument for God's existence rests on the fact that man knows that there is a God* even without the special revelation in the Bible, because God Himself inscribed this knowledge in his heart at creation (Ro 2:14–15). Hence the existence of God need not be proved to anyone of morally sound mind. The theological argument is this, that the Bible, without explanation, confronts man with the fact of God's being and sovereignty, which is at once acknowledged. Other arguments for God's existence are reasonably deduced from His self-manifestation in the universe, human history, and conscience (Ro 1.19–20; Acts 14:17; 17:24–28): the cosmological argument reasons from the effect to the cause that this orderly world cannot be the effect of chance, but must have for its Creator an intelligent and omnipotent God; the teleological argument demonstrates God's existence from the t evidences of design, purpose, and adaptation in the world; the moral argument is based on man's moral nature and the moral order traceable throughout the world; the aesthetic argument is founded on beauty and comeliness in the universe, which must have as its Maker a loving God; the ontological argument reasons that the concept of a perfect and absolute divine Being must be founded on fact since it cannot exist in a vacuum. Atheism* denies the validity of all arguments for God's existence; unbiased reason must admit that they supply cumulative proof. See also Anselm of Canterbury; Apologetics, II A; Philosophy of Religion.

Posted by tekriter Lot's of propoganda, but not much fact. What passages, praytell, explain where god is?

Don't be lazy, read it yourself. Then we'll talk.

Posted by Trixi Don't be lazy, read it yourself. Then we'll talk.

"Catechism: a collection of pious…instructions that priests take care to inculcate into little Christians to the end that they talk nonsense and rave for the rest of their lives."

Voltaire

I read it, and I am now dumber for having done so. The Catechism of one of the most evil organizations of all time, contains to information - just bible references. Did you read it? There are no proofs of god in there, just directions on how to worship a god that may or may not be there.

^ This attitude is why the Christians here are hesitant to answer your questions.

We're can't force you to see our point of view, and we're obviously never going to convince you. It seems as though you just like a good debate, rather then have a true interest.

^{If someone had a true interest, believe me, there would be numerous replies from the people here.}

Posted by journeylady The natural, or general argument for God's existence rests on the fact that man knows that there is a God* even without the special revelation in the Bible, because God Himself inscribed this knowledge in his heart at creation (Ro 2:14–15). Hence the existence of God need not be proved to anyone of morally sound mind.

Romans:
2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

First: This text proves nothing. The bible was written by fallible men, it is not the one true, infallible word of god: Fact.

Second: The fact that man acts morally is not proof that those morals came from a supernatural being. This argument is invalid as it does not account for a man that acts lawlessly or imorally - as that would then be proof that there is nothing witten unto his heart and therefore no god. See morality and ontology.

Posted by journeylady The theological argument is this, that the Bible, without explanation, confronts man with the fact of God's being and sovereignty, which is at once acknowledged. Other arguments for God's existence are reasonably deduced from His self-manifestation in the universe, human history, and conscience (Ro 1.19–20; Acts 14:17; 17:24–28):

This is just BS. Self manifestation in the universe? Do you really want to bring up HUMAN HISTORY from your side of the argument? The Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the holocaust, The inquisition, the belief in a flat earth, the catholic church spreading AIDS in africa through anti condom/education dogma. To try to use human history to validate a proof of god requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history. History seems to be lacking in a benevolent god.

What does concience have to do with god? See morality.

I have some questions raised by your scripture references:

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Is Salvation by faith alone?

1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Has the ever been a just person?

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (1:18-20)

"The wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. I don't believe, and I appear to be wrath free. Why is that?

1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

God only shows himself to believers? Isn't that convenient?

1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
How can invisible things be clearly seen? What creation? Those who fail to see evidence of God's existence are "without excuse." What?

Can God be found from reason alone?

Posted by journeylady the cosmological argument reasons from the effect to the cause that this orderly world cannot be the effect of chance, but must have for its Creator an intelligent and omnipotent God;

This is an invalid argument. unlikely does not equal impossible. Mathematics show that although unlikely, everything could have happened by chance. Unlikely is not impossible! However given the known number of planets, it becomes very likely that one of them would chance to evolve in this fashion. You can't say that something is a fact because you find the alternative hard to believe.

http://www.ffrf.or...bybarker/kalam.php

Also see below:

Posted by journeylady the teleological argument demonstrates God's existence from the evidences of design, purpose, and adaptation in the world;

Teleology is the theory of intelligent design, argued as an alternative to the biological fact of evolution.

Teleology is also an invalid argument. The universe, had it been designed would have been designed to make black holes, as it is more efficient than, on scale of billions to one, making habitable planets, or people. God designed man in his image, god is perfect, yet man, while complex, is a hideously flawed design. We are subject to untold vulnerabilities -case in point -it is a biological fact that our heads are too large and in nature, more often than not result in injury or death to our mothers during birth. Why would a god design that?

That the apparent improbability of a given scenario cannot necessarily be taken as an indication that this scenario is therefore more unlikely than any other potential one: "Rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been [randomly] dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable."

Oh, yeah, what evidence of design? There is no evidence of design, (read the Blind Watchmaker when you get a moment), but creationists/ID proponents often point to a lack of evidence of certain specific aspects of evolution: a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view, when in fact it is merely lack of evidence. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.[


[quote]Posted by journeylady
the moral argument is based on man's moral nature and the moral order traceable throughout the world;
[/quote]

What moral nature? What moral order? I saw a pit filled with children hacked to death and shot based on an order given by a military commander in Bosnia. What's that prove? What about the morality of the catholic church covering up some priest touching little boys? Did that morality come from god?

The moral argument depends in some way on the premise that moral normativity is a real objective phenomenon. This very premise is invalid, rendering all subsequent argumentation moot. Morality may have the strong appearance of objectivity but is actually relative.

For example, it is possible to view moral values as social constructs, created by certain individuals or groups to abridge the behavior of another group to benefit themselves or others like themselves. To illustrate, a mother who has been abandoned by her partner may teach her sons not to cheat on their wives to spare other women from her pain, eventually leading to the concepts of monogamy and chastity. In this way, morality originates as a principle of self-preservation. But as it is propagated, it is ingrained into the younger generation and colors their conception of morality. Friedrich Nietzsche provides elaborate explanations of this sort of how initially amoral social practices became artificially colored with moral significance. In modern science, similar explanations of the phenomenon of morality have been given and analyzed through fields like evolutionary psychology and game theory.

Posted by journeylady the aesthetic argument is founded on beauty and comeliness in the universe, which must have as its Maker a loving God;

What? it's pretty so god must have done it? That's nonsense. I made some ugly stuff in the toilet this morning. did Satan do that? Why would a loving god give us the heartbreak of psoriasis, or how about bowel cancer?

Invalid due to absurdity.

Posted by journeylady the ontological argument reasons that the concept of a perfect and absolute divine Being must be founded on fact since it cannot exist in a vacuum.

The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position.

Think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, the argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, it is no more so than Anselm's. You can't just think something into existence - oh, unless you are a christian!

Existence is not a perfection, because existence is not a property as such, and that referring to it as a property confuses the distinction between a concept of something and the thing itself. The argument is that anything which has the property of being non-existent could not possibly have any other properties, being non-existent, and thus not having color, location, or any other property. One cannot speak meaningfully of the non-existent apple that one is holding, saying that it is red, crisp, weighs a certain amount, is in one's right hand, and does not exist. Another way of phrasing this is that, if existence is a property, then there exist a number of things that have the property of not existing. Get it?

I make a further counterpoint: This is the FANG, the Freewill Argument for the Non-existence of God.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Check it out. It's a valid argument, unlike the fallacies provided above.

This is the best answer that I have ever been given by a christian, though. It is a bit too much to bite off all at once. Perhaps you could respond to my argument and if you want to expand on any of your previous arguments it may be best to focus on one at a time. Thanks.

Posted by katwoman We're can't force you to see our point of view, and we're obviously never going to convince you. It seems as though you just like a good debate, rather then have a true interest.

The converse is true of you. How can you ignore all the evidence of science and the complete lack of evidence for god, and not reasonably deduce that god does not exist, or at least may not exist? You will never be convinced, because you want to believe. Faith equals emotionalism.

I don't expect you to be convinced of my point of view, but I do expect that you would argue vigorously and effectively for yours if it had any merritt. it's a debate! a discussion.

The greatest source of evil in this world is religion. I have an obvious interest in the world, the future of my children and reason itself.

Pascal said: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

And Voltaire said people who believe in absurdities will commit atrocities.


Your argument ad hominem is a tacit admission of your lack of evidence or ability to debate. If you had something to say you would cease to argue against my character, or question if I am asking a valid question, and respond with some valid points.

Posted by tekriter First: This text proves nothing. The bible was written by fallible men, it is not the one true, infallible word of god: Fact.

I believe that the bible was written by fallible men inspired by the word of God. Those translating and studying it are also fallible men so it's very true that we man have parts of the bible wrong.

Posted by tekriter Second: The fact that man acts morally is not proof that those morals came from a supernatural being. This argument is invalid as it does not account for a man that acts lawlessly or imorally - as that would then be proof that there is nothing witten unto his heart and therefore no god. See morality and ontology.

I believe that the fact that people view these simple things as right or wrong displays that God's laws are written on our hearts. If a man acts lawlessly or imorally usually he tries to hide it, meaning he believes what he's done is wrong meaning the law is still written on his heart, he's just choosing to ignore it.

There ARE those who don't seem to understand the difference but they are the exception rather than the rule and I don't know how to explain them.

Posted by tekriter This is just BS. Self manifestation in the universe? Do you really want to bring up HUMAN HISTORY from your side of the argument? The Crusades, the Salem witch trials, the holocaust, The inquisition, the belief in a flat earth, the catholic church spreading AIDS in africa through anti condom/education dogma. To try to use human history to validate a proof of god requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history. History seems to be lacking in a benevolent god.

I believe that there are a lot of deplorable things in human history and that God has allowed them to happen because he gave man free will. There are also lots of very good things in human history as well like a group of 10 year old girls who last month cut off all their hair to donate to cancer patients for wigs for example.

I'm not ignorant of history, but simply the continued existance of the jewish culture and people after the number of times people have tried to exterminate them says to ME there is a God. I'm not about to believe it will say as much to you but thats what it says to me. ;]

Posted by tekriter I have some questions raised by your scripture references: 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Is Salvation by faith alone?

I believe it is. Most Definately. I'm an LCC Lutheran and that's doctrinal for us.

Posted by tekriter 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Has the ever been a just person?

I believe the only just person is Christ Jesus and through him I shall be saved by faith alone.

Posted by tekriter 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (1:18-20) "The wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. I don't believe, and I appear to be wrath free. Why is that?

I believe that, though You appear to be wrath free right now, were judgement day to come tomorrow you wouldn't be then.

Posted by tekriter 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. God only shows himself to believers? Isn't that convenient?

I can honestly say I don't understand this one fully. I believe that God attempts to show himself to all but some people close their eyes to it. God shows himself, believers see him.

Posted by tekriter 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: How can invisible things be clearly seen? What creation? Those who fail to see evidence of God's existence are "without excuse." What?

again I don't understand this fully. I can clearly see evidence of God's creation of the world in a newborn Baby, in a thunderhead and in a single leaf among thousands of other things. I know God created all of these things. I can't explain why you can't.

Posted by tekriter Can God be found from reason alone?

No. I believe Man's reason is flawed and without the Spirit we can't find God at all. We are incapable of finding God. God reveals himself to us and all we can do is turn away.

Posted by tekriter This is an invalid argument. unlikely does not equal impossible. Mathematics show that although unlikely, everything could have happened by chance. Unlikely is not impossible! However given the known number of planets, it becomes very likely that one of them would chance to evolve in this fashion. You can't say that something is a fact because you find the alternative hard to believe.

I accept this but the oposite must be accepted at all. Because the big bang theory of the creation of the universe has not been proven and therefor the concept of creation should be given as much credence according to your 'unlikely does not equal impossible' argument.

Posted by tekriter Teleology is the theory of intelligent design, argued as an alternative to the biological fact of evolution. Teleology is also an invalid argument. The universe, had it been designed would have been designed to make black holes, as it is more efficient than, on scale of billions to one, making habitable planets, or people.

That's assuming God designed the universe to be efficient.

Posted by tekriter God designed man in his image, god is perfect, yet man, while complex, is a hideously flawed design. We are subject to untold vulnerabilities -case in point -it is a biological fact that our heads are too large and in nature, more often than not result in injury or death to our mothers during birth. Why would a god design that?

When Man fell God punished Eve by making Childbirth a hideously painful process.

Posted by tekriter Oh, yeah, what evidence of design? There is no evidence of design, (read the Blind Watchmaker when you get a moment), but creationists/ID proponents often point to a lack of evidence of certain specific aspects of evolution: a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view, when in fact it is merely lack of evidence. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside of science.

I'm not a scientist, nor a theologist. This, as I've already said gets way over my head. I'm sorry but I can't address this one.

Posted by tekriter What moral nature? What moral order? I saw a pit filled with children hacked to death and shot based on an order given by a military commander in Bosnia. What's that prove? What about the morality of the catholic church covering up some priest touching little boys? Did that morality come from god?

See my first response on the nature of right and wrong and God's law written on people's hearts. It's my same argument here.

Posted by tekriter What? it's pretty so god must have done it? That's nonsense. I made some ugly stuff in the toilet this morning. did Satan do that? Why would a loving god give us the heartbreak of psoriasis, or how about bowel cancer? Invalid due to absurdity.

This isn't all that convincing an argument but I kind of agree with it because randon stuff doesn't look all that pleasing to me. I can't imagine that the beauty in the sunset or the delicacy of the veins of a leaf or in a flower is just a happy accidnet. I believe it had to have some kind of creator.

You can dismiss it out of hand if you want but I think it's a valid argument.

Posted by tekriter The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position. Think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, the argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties. Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist. While this argument seems absurd, it is no more so than Anselm's. You can't just think something into existence - oh, unless you are a christian!

I'm not a philosopher anymore than I'm a scientist or a theologist and so (yet again) I really can't counter your argument here. I barely understand the concept. Sorry.

Posted by tekriter Existence is not a perfection, because existence is not a property as such, and that referring to it as a property confuses the distinction between a concept of something and the thing itself. The argument is that anything which has the property of being non-existent could not possibly have any other properties, being non-existent, and thus not having color, location, or any other property. One cannot speak meaningfully of the non-existent apple that one is holding, saying that it is red, crisp, weighs a certain amount, is in one's right hand, and does not exist. Another way of phrasing this is that, if existence is a property, then there exist a number of things that have the property of not existing. Get it?

no. I really don't. but I still believe in God ;]

Posted by tekriter I make a further counterpoint: This is the FANG, the Freewill Argument for the Non-existence of God. The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

THis is what I believe. I'm not sure it's right, I'm not sure it even makes sence but this is what I believe: You're using this argument in a time based scenerio. If you accept the statement that God exists outside of time than it becomes invalid. God HAS free will, God could make whatever decisions he wants and does. He knows the infinate different consequences and actions that those choices will bring about and choses what he wants. But the choice is still his. He exists outside of time.

Posted by tekriter This is the best answer that I have ever been given by a christian, though. It is a bit too much to bite off all at once. Perhaps you could respond to my argument and if you want to expand on any of your previous arguments it may be best to focus on one at a time. Thanks.

As I've already mentioned I'm not a theologist but I do try and stand up for and explain my beliefs as best as I can. I took the previous post from my Synod's wed cylcopedia and if you'd like to check out anything else from it the site address is Here

This is a strictly old school Lutheran interpretation, so other people may have counter arguments for you.

I have to say though your very aggressive stance at this discussion is daunting and off-putting, you are at least willing to HAVE the discussion and that at least gives me hope for you. Though I don't know if you'd apprecate it, I pray that the Spirit opens your eyes to God.